Have you ever told your client that the outcome of the case “may turn on what the judge had for breakfast this morning?”  No doubt you were speaking metaphorically, but it turns out you may have been more literally correct than you might think.  Or, at least, that cases can turn on how long it’s been since the judge had breakfast.
 

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011 suggests the importance of the timing of the hearing in predicting the outcome of a case.  The authors studied 1,112 parole board rulings in Israel issued by eight judges over a ten-month period.

They found, not surprisingly, that prior recidivism and lack of a proposed rehabilitation program had a statistically significant negative effect on the likelihood that parole would be granted.  But the only other statistically significant factor was a surprising one: the length of time since the judge had had a meal or snack break.  The results were striking:

The authors were quick to point out that they couldn’t determine whether food itself was the important factor, citing other studies linking higher levels of executive function to short rest periods, exposure to nature, and other mood-improving interventions.

Nor could they determine whether decisions soon after a break were more “correct” than later decisions, only that they tended to be more favorable to the parole applicant.  But clearly, the likelihood that a prisoner would get parole diminished substantially the longer the judge was on the bench.

So what does this tell us?  Perhaps that if the clerk offers you a hearing on your motion at 8:30 or 1:00, you should take it in preference to one at 11:00 or 3:30.  And it makes this appellate lawyer wonder if appellate courts, which often hear oral argument in the morning, then convene in conference to decide the cases, and then go to lunch, would produce better decisions if they switched the order of the last two steps.